I hav been reading Dr Dave's explanations of Stan Shuffett's Pro-One aiming system. Dr Dave identyfys 8 initial points of aim (before the pivot), based on cut angle (and based on the range to the OB) -- and Dr Dave allso identifys 5 needed varyations of bridge length (for the pivot), based on range to OB. I am not sure how much of Dr Dave's wordage iz aktually Stan's.
The final cue alignment in every case iz centerball on the qball, and i think pointing at an infinite number of possible points on (or near) the OB. Dr Dave (or Stan) allso sez that......
"You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience".

Hmmmmmmmm -- thinx.
I karnt help thinking that if u praktis Stan's method u will soon kum to recognize the final aim points on (near) the OB, ie for all cuts and ranges (ie after the pivot, ie with the cue line throo center of qball).

If so, instead of aiming and pivoting, why not walk straight up and aim direktly for the korrekt point on the OB (throo center of qball of course).
And, this way, u can uze any bridge length u like.

Hmmmmmmm -- or -- u kan ignore Stan's method entirely, and just pot lots of balls, and pretty soon.....
"You develop a feel for the alignment required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience".

But i must admit that i myself often uze simple initial aiming points on the OB (eg 3/4 ball, or 1/2 ball, or 1/4 ball), and then i fronthandpivot and/or backhandpivot to modyfy my (simple) initial aim. So, aiming systems kan help.

Hmmmmmm -- Stan's Pro-One mostly needs u to initially align a half-tip off center on the qball. Yesterday i woz uzing a 13.4mm cue. Today i am uzing a 10mm. And i sometimes uze an 8.8mm. Obviously different cues would need something other than the standard "half-tip" offset.

The learning process for pro one is a two step process. First you learn to identify the aim points and how to come into the shot and use the manual pivot.
The second step is to recognize the shot and come into the shot while you have already made the pivot while you are getting into shooting position. If you only learn the first step (CTE), you will still be pocketing balls. Learning the second step (Pro One) just simplifies the process.
Order the DVD...Don't worry about what others say about it. Watch it for yourself, and you will understand. Stan does a very good job of explaining the whole process.

Steve

cushioncrawler

02-21-2011, 02:40 PM

Interesting. What i like about pro-one (alltho i hav never tryd it) iz that your final aim iz allways throo center of qball. After which i suppoze u kan pivot etc to get english etc. In which case praps u hav an intial aim, then a primary aim, and then the final aim (ie with english etc).

But do i understand the second step. Am i korrekt in thinking that the necessary pivot iz sort of made in mid-air, ie before u place your bridge. Iz that what u meant??

Another thing. If the final aim iz throo center of qball, do u then lift your gaze to the point on the OB where the cue iz finally aiming?? Or do u ignore the OB.
If u ignore the OB, then u will be making the stroke while simply gazing at the qball (and qtip).
Some very good players down the ages hav recommended ignoring the OB on the stroke. I sometimes do that myself.
mac.

pooltchr

02-21-2011, 07:22 PM

I just recently got the DVD myself, and am personally still working at the manual pivot stage. I've watched the second part, but havent actually started to work on it yet, so I'm probably not the best person to give you a lot of detail, but yes, in essence, the pivot is incorporated into the initial setup.
And yes, you do aim through the center of the cue ball, and stan does talk about incorporating BHE when side spin is needed on a shot.

Steve

cushioncrawler

02-22-2011, 02:46 AM

The initial pivot, iz that front hand pivot??

Re incorporating BHP for english, it just occurred to me that if Stan's method needs say 5 different bridge lengths, then before incorporating BHP, ie to get english, i guess that u would needta change your bridge L to your old favorit L, ie the L that your cue needs for BHP to work accurately.
mac.

Qtec

02-22-2011, 05:32 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hav been reading Dr Dave's explanations of Stan Shuffett's Pro-One aiming system. Dr Dave identyfys 8 initial points of aim (before the pivot), based on cut angle (and based on the range to the OB) -- and Dr Dave allso identifys 5 needed varyations of bridge length (for the pivot), based on range to OB. I am not sure how much of Dr Dave's wordage iz aktually Stan's.
The final cue alignment in every case iz centerball on the qball, and i think pointing at an infinite number of possible points on (or near) the OB. Dr Dave (or Stan) allso sez that......
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience".</span>

Hmmmmmmmm -- thinx.
I karnt help thinking that if u praktis Stan's method u will soon kum to recognize the final aim points on (near) the OB, ie for all cuts and ranges (ie after the pivot, ie with the cue line throo center of qball).

<u>If so, instead of aiming and pivoting, why not walk straight up and aim direktly for the korrekt point on the OB (throo center of qball of course).
And, this way, u can uze any bridge length u like.</u> </div></div>

I must have read 100's of posts and conversed with Hal over the years and there was always something missing from his explanations of his system.
Now we know, its this mysterious pivoting that is required to make it work.
I'm not knocking the system because I think its a brilliant concept and will help a lot of people but its not for pro's. Its basically a description of what good players do naturally after years of practice using trial and error.

Same shot with 2 different cues, same pivot point and still make the shot?

Am I missing something?

Q

cushioncrawler

02-22-2011, 05:56 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must have read 100's of posts and conversed with Hal over the years and there was always something missing from his explanations of his system. Now we know, its this mysterious pivoting that is required to make it work. I'm not knocking the system because I think its a brilliant concept and will help a lot of people but its not for pro's. Its basically a description of what good players do naturally after years of practice using trial and error.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A cue's squerv duznt matter. Stan's Pro-One final aim iz allways throo center of qball, so a cue's squerv duznt affekt Stan's Pro-One, it shood work ok for any cue. mac.</div></div>I disagree. If this is true then squirt is not a factor? Same shot with 2 different cues, same pivot point and still make the shot? Am I missing something? Q</div></div>q -- Yes. If aiming and hitting throo center of qball squirt and squerv aint never a faktor.
I suspekt that u are getting confused with shots where your initial aim iz center of qball, and then u pivot to somewhere else. Obviously if hitting qball off center squirt and squerv will allways be a faktor.

Last week i woz uzing a 13.4mm 18.7oz (2010) 2-piece maple pool cue (got this for $25). This week i am uzing an Alcock Champion (1898) ash one piece, 15.75oz, 10.7mm (got this for nothing).
With the 13.4mm i kan BHP if i uze a shortish bridge. Same shot with the 10.7mm -- i kan FHP (bridge L not a faktor). The difference feels weird.
That Alcock of mine -- its the same cue that Walter Lindrum uzed the last day he played, ie in 1960 -- i hav seen hiz Alcock and my Alcock, and they look identical (except that hiz iz worth about $100,000).
mac.

Qtec

02-22-2011, 06:11 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">q -- Yes. If aiming and hitting throo center of qball squirt and squerv aint never a faktor.
I suspekt that u are getting confused with shots where <u>your initial aim iz center of qball, and then u pivot to somewhere else. Obviously if hitting qball off center squirt and squerv will allways be a faktor.</u> </div></div>

Yeah. that's what I was talking about and there lies the problem, It comes down to feel.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience". </div></div>

I think its a brilliant concept and will help a lot of people but its not for pro's.

Q </div></div>

You might want to tell players like Stevie Moore and John Schmidt that it's not for pros. Apparently they haven't been informed, and are using it every day.

There are many different ways to determine where to shoot the cue ball. Ghost ball, double distance, SAM, contact, CTE, etc. Not every system works for everybody, but most players can find one that "clicks" for them.

I think its a brilliant concept and will help a lot of people but its not for pro's.

Q </div></div>

You might want to tell players like Stevie Moore and John Schmidt that it's not for pros. Apparently they haven't been informed, and are using it every day.

Steve </div></div>

I saw Bustamonte and Manolo doing it in Orlando.

SpiderMan

02-22-2011, 09:58 AM

[quote=Chopstick I saw Bustamonte and Manolo doing it in Orlando. [/quote]

You should have been home, forwarding pictures of that lathe.

SpiderMan

Chopstick

02-22-2011, 11:23 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But do i understand the second step. Am i korrekt in thinking that the necessary pivot iz sort of made in mid-air, ie before u place your bridge. Iz that what u meant??

Another thing. If the final aim iz throo center of qball, do u then lift your gaze to the point on the OB where the cue iz finally aiming?? </div></div>

I recently received Stan's DVD and I highly recommend it. I have spoken to Hal few times over the years and I never understood it. I sort of worked but it had problem areas. Stan's DVD cleared up all of that for me.

I had a friend over and I played about 10 minutes of it in the CTE section and invited him to hit a few balls with it. He was shocked at how well it works. He even insisted that I hold my jacket in front of the pocket like a curtain where he could see no part of the pocket and he still hit dead center pocket every time.

CTE has been the a controversial subject for quite a while. I believe that I can explain it in light of what I have learned recently. The best way to approach Pro One is not to over think it. If you were to show Pro One to a mechanical engineer he would never get it and make numerous arguments about why it cannot possibly work that way. If you were to show Pro One to a neurologist he would understand it immediately and insist that is exactly how it works no matter what aiming system you employ.

All of the arguements against CTE based aiming totally disregard the associative nature of the human brain. There are new discoveries every day about the fundamental wiring of the human brain that we all have in common. There is an interesting excercise out there that asks you to do a series of simple calculations then you are ask to think of a tool and a color. Everyone who does this excercise names the same tool and the same color. Here is another example of this principle.

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style="color: #006600">Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.</span> </span>

Now you would have one hell of a time getting a computer to make sense of the above but the human brain can do it easily. It is something fundamental about the way a human brain works as long as the one rule of the first and last letter that enables all human brains to read it.(which explains how we are able to read your posts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ) No one knows why this works but it does. The same can be said for Pro One.

Pro One is not a mechanical system. What Stan and Hal have done is uncover something basic in the wiring of the pool players brain. What Pro One does is teach you to use a visual image and a consistent line from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball to align your head(eyes) and your bridge hand into the optimal position for the execution of a center cue ball shot. Once you are aligned for a center cue ball shot, you can make adjustments for english from there.

I think too much time is spent worring about the pivot. I have a simple shortcut where you don't even have to think about the pivot at all. What if the cue ball had a vertical line in the center. You could easily set your bridge hand down where the edge of your tip was at that line. I look at the line from the edge of the object ball through the center of the cueball back to me. It is easy for me to see a parallel line offset from the first line where my bridge hand should go. Buddy Hall teaches to put your tip on the table where your bridge hand is going to go which makes this even eaiser. I just step into the shot from there. I just know that the line from where my bridge hand goes through the center of the cue ball is where the centerline of my cue has to be. I guess you could say I do the pivot in my head before I step into the shot.

You do have to use a shorter bridge when the cue ball and object ball are close together but I tend to do that naturally anyway. That is the only adjustment I have run across so far. To summarize my point, Pro One is about cognition, not geometry. You have to trust the miracle of your own brain because it will work it out.

Stan's DVD is only $45 and worth every penny. Just buy it. It is better than trying to reverse engineer the system from posts on the internet.

cushioncrawler

02-22-2011, 04:03 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">q -- Yes. If aiming and hitting throo center of qball squirt and squerv aint never a faktor.
I suspekt that u are getting confused with shots where <u>your initial aim iz center of qball, and then u pivot to somewhere else. Obviously if hitting qball off center squirt and squerv will allways be a faktor.</u> </div></div>Yeah. that's what I was talking about and there lies the problem, It comes down to feel.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience". </div></div>Q.</div></div>Q -- But with pro-one u end up aiming and stroking throo (vertical) center of Qball -- hencely squirt and swerv dont kum into it.
Squerv might kum into it if u pivot etc to get english -- but this pivot duznt appear in pro-one, az far az i am aware -- or, if it appears in pro-one somewhere, then it iz a separate topik.
mac.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had a friend over and I played about 10 minutes of it in the CTE section and invited him to hit a few balls with it. He was shocked at how well it works. He even insisted that I hold my jacket in front of the pocket like a curtain where he could see no part of the pocket and he still hit dead center pocket every time. CTE has been the a controversial subject for quite a while. I believe that I can explain it in light of what I have learned recently. The best way to approach Pro One is not to over think it. If you were to show Pro One to a mechanical engineer he would never get it and make numerous arguments about why it cannot possibly work that way. If you were to show Pro One to a neurologist he would understand it immediately and insist that is exactly how it works no matter what aiming system you employ. All of the arguements against CTE based aiming totally disregard the associative nature of the human brain. There are new discoveries every day about the fundamental wiring of the human brain that we all have in common. There is an interesting excercise out there that asks you to do a series of simple calculations then you are ask to think of a tool and a color. Everyone who does this excercise names the same tool and the same color. Here is another example of this principle. <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style="color: #006600">Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.</span> </span> Now you would have one hell of a time getting a computer to make sense of the above but the human brain can do it easily. It is something fundamental about the way a human brain works as long as the one rule of the first and last letter that enables all human brains to read it.(which explains how we are able to read your posts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ) No one knows why this works but it does. The same can be said for Pro One. Pro One is not a mechanical system. What Stan and Hal have done is uncover something basic in the wiring of the pool players brain. What Pro One does is teach you to use a visual image and a consistent line from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball to align your head(eyes) and your bridge hand into the optimal position for the execution of a center cue ball shot. Once you are aligned for a center cue ball shot, you can make adjustments for english from there. I think too much time is spent worring about the pivot. I have a simple shortcut where you don't even have to think about the pivot at all. What if the cue ball had a vertical line in the center. You could easily set your bridge hand down where the edge of your tip was at that line. I look at the line from the edge of the object ball through the center of the cueball back to me. It is easy for me to see a parallel line offset from the first line where my bridge hand should go. Buddy Hall teaches to put your tip on the table where your bridge hand is going to go which makes this even eaiser. I just step into the shot from there. I just know that the line from where my bridge hand goes through the center of the cue ball is where the centerline of my cue has to be. I guess you could say I do the pivot in my head before I step into the shot. You do have to use a shorter bridge when the cue ball and object ball are close together but I tend to do that naturally anyway. That is the only adjustment I have run across so far. To summarize my point, Pro One is about cognition, not geometry. You have to trust the miracle of your own brain because it will work it out. Stan's DVD is only $45 and worth every penny. Just buy it. It is better than trying to reverse engineer the system from posts on the internet.</div></div>My thort iz that pro-one iz too komplikated. It iz not simpler than learning potting-angles by uzing 100% feel, or by dividing the OB.
Over on AZB i see comments like "it might take a few months". Hell, it only takes a few months of praktis to learn ordinary potting, ie uzing feel or divizion.
But, every cue iz better than any other cue, for some shot, for someone. I am thinking, what iz it about pro-one that makes it betterer.

There iz one possible betterer thing, it involves how u look, and i asked about this earlyr.
When u shoot, az u shoot, where iz your gaze (with pro-one).
...... Iz it on the OB only (ie probly center).
...... Iz it on the qball only.
...... Iz it on the qtip only.
...... Iz it neutral, ie not really on anything.
...... It quickly changes(eg from qball during the pause, to OB).
...... It duzzenmadder, ie u kan shut your eyes if u want.
mac.

cushioncrawler

02-22-2011, 05:50 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If people want to read it, here it is:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#ProOne
Regards, Dave</div></div>Dr Dave -- Thanx for that, i redd it again just then.
I am impressed with your criticizm of CTE that in theory CTE seems to rezult in very few OB kut angles.
Pro-one would giv only about 8 kut angles, were it not for uzing 5 different bridge lengths which then givs 40 angles (much better).

I notice in your article that the Pro-One pivot iz a fixed-bridge pivot, ie backhandpivot (BHP). That answers one of my earlyr questions here.

But thems 5 different bridge L's start off shortish and then get shorter and shorter.
But most pool players uze a very long bridge (say 16").
Iz it safe to say that any pool player uzing a long bridge karnt possibly be uzing Pro-One???
mac.

dr_dave

02-22-2011, 07:34 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If people want to read it, here it is:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#ProOne
Regards, Dave</div></div>Dr Dave -- Thanx for that, i redd it again just then.
I am impressed with your criticizm of CTE that in theory CTE seems to rezult in very few OB kut angles.
Pro-one would giv only about 8 kut angles, were it not for uzing 5 different bridge lengths which then givs 40 angles (much better).

I notice in your article that the Pro-One pivot iz a fixed-bridge pivot, ie backhandpivot (BHP). That answers one of my earlyr questions here.

But thems 5 different bridge L's start off shortish and then get shorter and shorter.
But most pool players uze a very long bridge (say 16").
Iz it safe to say that any pool player uzing a long bridge karnt possibly be uzing Pro-One???
mac. </div></div>I'm not a user or fan of Pro-One or any version of CTE, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. I just interpreted and concisely summarized what I saw on the DVD after viewing it many times.

Maybe somebody else can address your question.

Regards,
Dave

JohnnyD

02-22-2011, 11:46 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had a friend over and I played about 10 minutes of it in the CTE section and invited him to hit a few balls with it. He was shocked at how well it works. He even insisted that I hold my jacket in front of the pocket like a curtain where he could see no part of the pocket and he still hit dead center pocket every time. CTE has been the a controversial subject for quite a while. I believe that I can explain it in light of what I have learned recently. The best way to approach Pro One is not to over think it. If you were to show Pro One to a mechanical engineer he would never get it and make numerous arguments about why it cannot possibly work that way. If you were to show Pro One to a neurologist he would understand it immediately and insist that is exactly how it works no matter what aiming system you employ. All of the arguements against CTE based aiming totally disregard the associative nature of the human brain. There are new discoveries every day about the fundamental wiring of the human brain that we all have in common. There is an interesting excercise out there that asks you to do a series of simple calculations then you are ask to think of a tool and a color. Everyone who does this excercise names the same tool and the same color. Here is another example of this principle. <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style="color: #006600">Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.</span> </span> Now you would have one hell of a time getting a computer to make sense of the above but the human brain can do it easily. It is something fundamental about the way a human brain works as long as the one rule of the first and last letter that enables all human brains to read it.(which explains how we are able to read your posts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ) No one knows why this works but it does. The same can be said for Pro One. Pro One is not a mechanical system. What Stan and Hal have done is uncover something basic in the wiring of the pool players brain. What Pro One does is teach you to use a visual image and a consistent line from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball to align your head(eyes) and your bridge hand into the optimal position for the execution of a center cue ball shot. Once you are aligned for a center cue ball shot, you can make adjustments for english from there. I think too much time is spent worring about the pivot. I have a simple shortcut where you don't even have to think about the pivot at all. What if the cue ball had a vertical line in the center. You could easily set your bridge hand down where the edge of your tip was at that line. I look at the line from the edge of the object ball through the center of the cueball back to me. It is easy for me to see a parallel line offset from the first line where my bridge hand should go. Buddy Hall teaches to put your tip on the table where your bridge hand is going to go which makes this even eaiser. I just step into the shot from there. I just know that the line from where my bridge hand goes through the center of the cue ball is where the centerline of my cue has to be. I guess you could say I do the pivot in my head before I step into the shot. You do have to use a shorter bridge when the cue ball and object ball are close together but I tend to do that naturally anyway. That is the only adjustment I have run across so far. To summarize my point, Pro One is about cognition, not geometry. You have to trust the miracle of your own brain because it will work it out. Stan's DVD is only $45 and worth every penny. Just buy it. It is better than trying to reverse engineer the system from posts on the internet.</div></div>My thort iz that pro-one iz too komplikated. It iz not simpler than learning potting-angles by uzing 100% feel, or by dividing the OB.
Over on AZB i see comments like "it might take a few months". Hell, it only takes a few months of praktis to learn ordinary potting, ie uzing feel or divizion.
But, every cue iz better than any other cue, for some shot, for someone. I am thinking, what iz it about pro-one that makes it betterer.

There iz one possible betterer thing, it involves how u look, and i asked about this earlyr.
When u shoot, az u shoot, where iz your gaze (with pro-one).
...... Iz it on the OB only (ie probly center).
...... Iz it on the qball only.
...... Iz it on the qtip only.
...... Iz it neutral, ie not really on anything.
...... It quickly changes(eg from qball during the pause, to OB).
...... It duzzenmadder, ie u kan shut your eyes if u want.
mac.
</div></div>Excellent post mac

JohnnyD

02-22-2011, 11:47 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">q -- Yes. If aiming and hitting throo center of qball squirt and squerv aint never a faktor.
I suspekt that u are getting confused with shots where <u>your initial aim iz center of qball, and then u pivot to somewhere else. Obviously if hitting qball off center squirt and squerv will allways be a faktor.</u> </div></div>Yeah. that's what I was talking about and there lies the problem, It comes down to feel.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience". </div></div>Q.</div></div>Q -- But with pro-one u end up aiming and stroking throo (vertical) center of Qball -- hencely squirt and swerv dont kum into it.
Squerv might kum into it if u pivot etc to get english -- but this pivot duznt appear in pro-one, az far az i am aware -- or, if it appears in pro-one somewhere, then it iz a separate topik.
mac. </div></div>Squirt is like a johnson 25 hp on a paddlewheeler it will go straight or it can veer off you just don't know till after the ball stops.

Jal

02-23-2011, 03:52 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
But thems 5 different bridge L's start off shortish and then get shorter and shorter.
But most pool players uze a very long bridge (say 16").
Iz it safe to say that any pool player uzing a long bridge karnt possibly be uzing Pro-One???
mac. </div></div>Hi Mac,

If you're using the bridge to pivot from a 1/2-tip offset to center-ball, to generate the various cut angles, bridge length has to vary up and down the cue and well beyond the back of it. It varies both with CB-OB separation and cut angle; much more with cut angle.

It's fairly easy to see why the pivot location moves away from the tip, and in fact is very far from it for certain ranges of cut angles. Whenever the correct aim-line approaches the pre-pivot setup direction, a pivot more like a parallel shift is called for (i.e., pivot at infinity).

Not having seen the DVD, I don't know if Stan includes special procedures for these angles. Taken as is, though, the bridge distances Dr. Dave quoted from the DVD are far too restrictive. And, according to his summary, they are independent of cut angle, when in fact they should vary the most with it.

Jim -- But with Pro-one every shot iz center ball, ie somewhere on the vertical axis of the qball.
Alltho (after reeching the end of pro-one aim) the shooter iz allowed to pivot or shift etc to get english.
mac.

Jal

02-23-2011, 01:17 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim -- But with Pro-one every shot iz center ball, ie somewhere on the vertical axis of the qball.</div></div>
Sure. I was talking about pivoting to get to the vertical center-axis (no english). To apply backhand english, you'd then pivot at the cue's intrinsic pivot point, which is more or less constant and generally within the realm of normal bridge lengths.

Jim

cushioncrawler

02-23-2011, 03:55 PM

But Dr Dave/Stan say.....
".....You also need to adjust your bridge length based on CB-OB distance: about 8-9" when several feet apart, about 7-8" when about 2' apart, about 6-7" when about 1' apart, about 5-6" when less than about 1' apart, and very short when the balls a very close....."

I am thinking that theze are a long ways inside pool player's favorit bridge L. Thats why i sayd that if u see anyone aiming with a longish bridge then surely they arent uzing pro-one -- or are they??
mac.

Jal

02-23-2011, 07:07 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Dr Dave/Stan say.....
".....You also need to adjust your bridge length based on CB-OB distance: about 8-9" when several feet apart, about 7-8" when about 2' apart, about 6-7" when about 1' apart, about 5-6" when less than about 1' apart, and very short when the balls a very close....."

I am thinking that theze are a long ways inside pool player's favorit bridge L. Thats why i sayd that if u see anyone aiming with a longish bridge then surely they arent uzing pro-one -- or are they??
mac.
</div></div>

I suppose they aren't using Pro One if one insists that the bridge length conforms to Stan's prescription. I was just reporting the results of some calculations (graphs) that I did to determine the correct bridge (pivot) location for various cut angles.

There is considerable ambiguity regarding where one's cue should be pointed before the pivot. From Dr. Dave's description of Stan's method:

"While standing, sight through the center of the CB and the outside edge of the OB (i.e., sight along the CTE line). Then, based on the amount of cut needed (see the table below), shift your sight to a line through a given edge or point on the CB to a given point on the OB, while also keeping the CTE line in your vision. Then drop and slide into your stance straight toward the CB in the direction of the sight line, aligning the cue 1/2-tip off the CB's center. Then pivot the cue to the center of the CB with a fixed-bridge pivot."

So which line should one choose, the edge to A,B, C, or the CTE line, or somewhere in between or even outside of these lines? In the case of 3/4-full to half-ball hits (~15-30 deg. cut angles), those lines are parallel to each other; CB edge-to-OB center is parallel to CB center-to-OB edge. Thus, there is only one pre-pivot direction clearly defined. For this range of cut angles, then, it would appear that you line up in that direction. If you do that, however, the geometrically correct pivot locations vary up and down the cue, and indeed beyond the end of the cue for some of those angles.

To bring the pivot distances in line with those described in Dr. Dave's summary, your pre-pivot cue direction will have to be something other than the clearly defined one. How do you determine that direction? While it can be arrived at mathematically, obviously the users of Pro One aren't doing that. They could be memorizing a whole bunch of pre-pivot cue directions gleaned from trial and error, but this makes it a 'feel' method rather than a systematic approach. And, imo, a very difficult one in that these directions vary with both cut angle and ball separation. Or, they're relying on other aids, such as ghostball or contact points, to zero in on the final aim line. Again, that's generally considered feel.

I guess my point is that if you insist that Pro One or any CTE style method, by definition, enables you to arrive at the correct aim line in a "paint by numbers" sort of way, no one actually uses it.

Jim

cushioncrawler

02-23-2011, 07:22 PM

Jim -- Yes, like i sayd...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My thort iz that pro-one iz too komplikated. It iz not simpler than learning potting-angles by uzing 100% feel, or by dividing the OB.
Over on AZB i see comments like "it might take a few months". Hell, it only takes a few months of praktis to learn ordinary potting, ie uzing feel or divizion.
But, every cue iz better than any other cue, for some shot, for someone. I am thinking, what iz it about pro-one that makes it betterer.</div></div>Anyhow, aiming etc iz a minor worry. Good konsistent cueing iz the main worry by far. If i set up a say halfball pot, and marked the qball and OB pozzys with a chalkmark, and got a player to try to pot the OB 10 times in 10 shots, after having az many praktis shots az he/she liked, then hiz/her aiming system or aiming method would hardly matter, what would matter iz good konsistent cueing.

Pro-one will never make anyone a champ in a million yrs. What makes a champ iz good cueing etc etc. But, mightbe i am wrong. Iz there something about pro-one that duz in fakt lead to more konsistent cueing. It obviously haz something going for it. What iz it.
mac.

Bambu

02-23-2011, 08:18 PM

I could never get consistent results with any pivot method. But, I do enjoy reading about it. Loved that clip fron BRKNRUN.

cushioncrawler

02-23-2011, 08:50 PM

What clips that??

Bambu

02-23-2011, 09:23 PM

from BRKNRUN:

Ok...You know people talk like CTE is some sort of Religion....I did some research and this is what I found out.

One day God called Hal to the top of the mountain and he gave him the first part of his new system of pool aiming laws for his people - The Center To Edge method. (CTE summarized the absolutes of spiritual and moral shot makeing that God intended for his people.)

God continued to give direction to his people through Hal, including the civil and ceremonial laws for controlling their CB. Eventually God called Hal to the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. During this time he gave him instructions for the tabernacle and the CTE instructions. When God finished speaking to Hal on Mount Ivory Rock, he gave him two tablets of stone inscribed by the very finger of God. They contained the CTE instructions.

Meanwhile, the people of the pool world had become impatient while waiting for Hal to return with the instructions from God. Hal had been gone for so long that the people gave up on him and begged Stan to make them Pro-1 so they could worship. So Stan collected offerings of gold from all the people and made a instruction video in the form of Pro-1. Then they held a festival and bowed down to worship their idol. So quickly they had fallen into the idolatry they were accustomed to in the pool world and disobeyed God's CTE instructions.

When Hal came down from the mountain with the tablets of stone, his anger burned when he saw the people given over to idolatry. He threw down the two tablets, smashing them to pieces at the foot of the mountain.

Now you all know why there is not complete written instructions for CTE.

cushioncrawler

02-24-2011, 12:54 AM

Hal hazta go back up. But this time Hal will havta inskribe the new tablets hizself.
What iz really needed iz a CTE bible. Which collects all known gospels and epistles.
Wait. Dr Dave haz assembled just such a bible.
mac.

"There iz only one holy aiming point, for all shots".
St Hal.

BCA Master Instr

02-24-2011, 08:17 AM

Sinners.......

cushioncrawler

02-24-2011, 02:58 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....To bring the pivot distances in line with those described in Dr. Dave's summary, your pre-pivot cue direction will have to be something other than the clearly defined one. How do you determine that direction? While it can be arrived at mathematically, obviously the users of Pro One aren't doing that. They could be memorizing a whole bunch of pre-pivot cue directions gleaned from trial and error, but this makes it a 'feel' method rather than a systematic approach. And, imo, a very difficult one in that these directions vary with both cut angle and ball separation. Or, they're relying on other aids, such as ghostball or contact points, to zero in on the final aim line. Again, that's generally considered feel.

I guess my point is that if you insist that Pro One or any CTE style method, by definition, enables you to arrive at the correct aim line in a "paint by numbers" sort of way, no one actually uses it. Jim</div></div>Jim -- I woz thinking that praps pro1 leads to konsistency koz of painting by numbers. Aiming by feel kan lead u to second-guessing az u stroke (ie hoiking). If pro1 duznt involve any feel then i woz thinking that it would remoov the feel-faktor, and replace it with konsistency.

That too iz why i mentioned the eyes -- where are u looking with pro1, az u stroke. If pro1 stopped u from looking (again) at the pocket, or the OB, or something, then it would prevent your eyes from encouraging any second-guessing.

Praps pro1 iz a cure for bad eyesight. Praps most players hav trouble with aim koz of eye dominance etc. Kuts to left look different to kuts to right etc.
Praps pro1 inkloods some sort of natural compensation, ie 3 wrongs make a korrekt. Praps (konsistent) errors in estimating the half-tip initial offset left and right compensate for other vizion errors.

Praps pro1 iz a cure for a poor stroke, ie for your natural hoik. Praps the pro1 method provides lots of inbuilt scope for u to learn or feel (or something) some sort of (hidden) varyation that overkums your natural hoik -- for instance uzing a different bridge L for a kut to left kompared to the same kut to right.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim -- I woz thinking that praps pro1 leads to konsistency koz of painting by numbers. Aiming by feel kan lead u to second-guessing az u stroke (ie hoiking). If pro1 duznt involve any feel then i woz thinking that it would remoov the feel-faktor, and replace it with konsistency.

That too iz why i mentioned the eyes -- where are u looking with pro1, az u stroke. If pro1 stopped u from looking (again) at the pocket, or the OB, or something, then it would prevent your eyes from encouraging any second-guessing.</div></div>
But the system, adhered to religiously, doesn't give you the right aim line on many, many shots. It requires adjustments.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Praps pro1 iz a cure for bad eyesight. Praps most players hav trouble with aim koz of eye dominance etc. Kuts to left look different to kuts to right etc.
Praps pro1 inkloods some sort of natural compensation, ie 3 wrongs make a korrekt. Praps (konsistent) errors in estimating the half-tip initial offset left and right compensate for other vizion errors.

Praps pro1 iz a cure for a poor stroke, ie for your natural hoik. Praps the pro1 method provides lots of inbuilt scope for u to learn or feel (or something) some sort of (hidden) varyation that overkums your natural hoik -- for instance uzing a different bridge L for a kut to left kompared to the same kut to right.</div></div>
Given all the cut angles and ball separations, I think that would involve a fantastic number of coincidences.

If you go to Dr. Dave's webpage on aiming, Colin Colenso, Patrick Johnson, and Mike Page (and maybe others) offer some plausible reasons why these systems can help. For all I know, some aspects would help me. But I wouldn't be under the illusion that, by themselves, they produce proper aim lines when followed verbatim. The relevant comments are about a tenth of the way into this long page:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html

Some of Colin's remarks echo what you said in the first section.

Jim

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 03:45 AM

Yes, Colin mentions possible relaxation trust and focus.

But i hav a theory that az feel grows then so duz familiarity followed by that good old swooping feeling.

Its a bit like wearing a mask so that u dont feel so embarrassed about standing naked. If u wear the mask all the time, it wont be long before u are standing there naked and just az embarrassed az u were before u bort the mask.
mac.

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 03:47 AM

Colin had a hit on my Duke a couple of years ago -- havnt seen him since -- wonder if he's still in town.
mac.

pooltchr

02-25-2011, 07:37 AM

Mac,
You are making a lot of judgements based on someone else's opinions. Dr Dave, for example, while I'm sure has tried to be as objective as possible, is known to have some existing bias against CTE systems.

I have never been a big advocate of CTE, but as an instructor, I try to remain as open minded as possible. So what did I do? I got the DVD to decide for myself. I've had it for a few weeks, and continue to work with the system. My initial viewing simply said to me "Hey, there might be something to this". So I am spending some time working with it. Am I making every shot? No way! Is that the system, or my imperfections? I have to assume it is me, until proven otherwise.

I suggest you, as a fellow instructor, might want to get the DVD, do some work, and see for yourself. You might find there is little value for you, but you might also find that the information is the gold nugget of aiming systems.

Remember, we don't know what we don't know. Open minds open doors.

Note...I do not have any stake in the sale of Stan's DVD, so personally, I don't care if anyone buys it. I just think anyone who hasn't actually seen Pro One and tried to work with it really shouldn't be critiquing it, based on pre-conceived notions, or the opinion of others.

Steve

Bambu

02-25-2011, 08:56 AM

Steve, I understand what youre saying. Based on Pro-1 and assuming for the moment that pr0-1 is mathematically correct, would you say that it is safe to say other pivot based methods cannot be correct all the time? I mean, if we need to shoot with a certain bridge length for a given shot(which other systems do not call for) how can all these other pivot based systems also be correct?

dr_dave

02-25-2011, 09:38 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dr Dave, for example, while I'm sure has tried to be as objective as possible, is known to have some existing bias against CTE systems.</div></div>Steve,

I try to present the information, explanations, analysis, and evaluations objectively. Personally, I think your use of "bias" is a bit strong. I would prefer "objective opinion based on irrefutable facts." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr

02-25-2011, 10:40 AM

Dave,
I did not intend to offend at all. But admittedly, there are those who have been in the CTE camp for a long time, and those who have not. I think you will admit that you have not been an advocate of CTE.

I read your review, and I found it an accurate review of the information. But, as I suggested to Mac, I think if you were to set aside your analytical side and actually put it to practical application (It won't happen overnight, it takes time, as does anything worth while) you might find an interesting prize in the bottom of that particular Cracker Jack box.

That being said, I do appreciate your analytical side. But we know in pool, it takes both the left brain and the right brain to be successful.

Have a great day.

Steve

pooltchr

02-25-2011, 10:42 AM

Bambu,
I have not studies pivot methods in depth, so I would prefer not to pass judgement on how they do or do not work at this time.

Steve

dr_dave

02-25-2011, 12:21 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,
I did not intend to offend at all. But admittedly, there are those who have been in the CTE camp for a long time, and those who have not. I think you will admit that you have not been an advocate of CTE.</div></div>Fair enough. I was just suggesting that "bias" might not be an appropriate word to describe my understanding and opinions concerning CTE; although, it might apply to some people in the CTE camp, IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read your review, and I found it an accurate review of the information. But, as I suggested to Mac, I think if you were to set aside your analytical side and actually put it to practical application (It won't happen overnight, it takes time, as does anything worth while) you might find an interesting prize in the bottom of that particular Cracker Jack box.</div></div>I certainly don't use my "analytical side" when I aim, and I can make the CTE approaches work at the table if I use my normal visualization and aiming skills during the process (i.e., if I make "adjustments"). However, if I follow the directions as advertised (without adjustment), the limitations are clear when trying to apply the approach to a wide range of cut angles, CB-OB distances, and bridge lengths, on or off the table.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, I do appreciate your analytical side.</div></div>Thank you. I do too, when I need it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But we know in pool, it takes both the left brain and the right brain to be successful.</div></div>That's something we can agree on 100%!

Dr Dave -- Pro-1, with 8 aim-lines, and 5 different bridge-L's, givs 40 kut-angles for the full range (90dg) -- or even an infinite number if one takes into account baby adjustments of some sort. Which in theory might do the trick -- ie praps 32 kut-angles being needed for a 9' table (dunno).
Duz this 40 (or ??) get over your (major) early criticisms of pro-1??
mac.

dr_dave

02-25-2011, 02:50 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dr Dave -- Pro-1, with 8 aim-lines, and 5 different bridge-L's, givs 40 kut-angles for the full range (90dg) -- or even an infinite number if one takes into account baby adjustments of some sort. Which in theory might do the trick -- ie praps 32 kut-angles being needed for a 9' table (dunno).
Duz this 40 (or ??) get over your (major) early criticisms of pro-1??
mac. </div></div>With Stan's version of CTE (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#ProOne), there are only 6 possible lines of aim for each CB-OB distance. This is not sufficient to cover a wide range of cut angles, especially if the OB is not very close to the pocket. For more info, see limited lines of aim (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#limited).

BTW, my point in presenting the information is not to "criticize" or be "biased." My point is to define the system clearly and identify both the benefits (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits) and realistic limitations. For more info, see my CTE resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE).

Regards,
Dave

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 03:20 PM

Yes -- When i say 8, this = 6 main (initial) aim-lines + 2 more (for two short range kuts when range &lt; 12").
Hmmmmm. But, i am now thinking that u are korrekt -- u karnt add 2 to 6 to giv 8, koz thems 2 are a replacement for 2 of the 8.

Dr Dave allso mentions 5 bridge-L's. Six by five = 30 kut angles.
Unless Stan duznt mention 5 bridge-L's at all, and the 5 kum from non-Stan sources.
So, are the 5 L's official pro-1 "doctrine", ie "canon".
If so then that must yield 30 kuts, and 30 appears to be a good figure.

(wikileaks)
...... *: If the CB-OB distance is less than about 1', sight to "inside 1/8" instead of "inside 1/4."

...... You also need to adjust your bridge length based on CB-OB distance: about 8-9" when several feet apart, about 7-8" when about 2' apart, about 6-7" when about 1' apart, about 5-6" when less than about 1' apart, and very short when the balls a very close.

...... The green-shaded boxes show which combinations of pocket size and OB-pocket distance work with 15 or fewer aim points. For average size pockets (4.5 to 5.0 inches) you need more aim points when you get beyond about 4 feet from the pocket. So your estimate that "any typical shot" works is overstated, but not ridiculous. With a real aiming system, we have to double the number of aim points - an aiming system would have to have a minimum of 30 total aim points per side (left or right cut) for half of them to cover most "typical" shots.

dr_dave

02-25-2011, 03:43 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes -- When i say 8, this = 6 main (initial) aim-lines + 2 more (for two short range kuts when range &lt; 12").
Hmmmmm. But, i am now thinking that u are korrekt -- u karnt add 2 to 6 to giv 8, koz thems 2 are a replacement for 2 of the 8.

Dr Dave allso mentions 5 bridge-L's. Six by five = 30 kut angles.
Unless Stan duznt mention 5 bridge-L's at all, and the 5 kum from non-Stan sources.
So, are the 5 L's official pro-1 "doctrine", ie "canon".
If so then that must yield 30 kuts.

(wikileaks)
...... *: If the CB-OB distance is less than about 1', sight to "inside 1/8" instead of "inside 1/4."

...... You also need to adjust your bridge length based on CB-OB distance: about 8-9" when several feet apart, about 7-8" when about 2' apart, about 6-7" when about 1' apart, about 5-6" when less than about 1' apart, and very short when the balls a very close. </div></div>Mac,

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point of my last post. At each CB-OB distance, there are only 6 different possible lines of aim. The aim points and bridge distance are different for certain CB-OB distance ranges, but there are still only 6 different lines of aim for each ball relationship.

Regards,
Dave

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 03:57 PM

Dr Dave -- I just then edited my previous item (not important).
The way i see (read) it iz that there are 6 possible initial aims, but then u pivot to giv 6 possible final aims.
But, if there are 5 possible bridge lengths, then that makes five sets of six, ie 30 possible aims (ie 30 possible kut angles).
And, 30 appears to be acceptable for the vast majority of shots (ie praps not for very long range to pocket).
mac.

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 04:04 PM

Wait. Yes, i am starting to see. Yes, for one given CB-OB dist, there are only 6 final aims. And for medium range shots (OB-pocket) u are behind the 8Ball if u aint got at least say 30.

This iz a calamity for pro-1. A catastrophy.
But dr Stan will say "yes, but it aint serious".
mac.

cushioncrawler

02-25-2011, 04:35 PM

Funny CTE (pivot) story.
My billiards mate from Sydney, Mike, vizited. He haz trouble potting.
I showed Mike my SAM, where i uze pivot to ajdust intial aim. And where i uze pivot to counter bad kontakt (ie bad stroke aktually).
And i showed Mike Dr Dave's stuff on pivoting etc.
Mike made a copy, and later proudly announced that pivoting had cured hiz malady, and he showed me Dr Dave's diagram illustrating the aktual theory.

I had a look, and i laughed and laughed. Mike had gotten the dia all wrong.
What he thort woz a blue line woz in fakt black.
But black worked even better.
mac.

Beleeving iz seeing.

Rich R.

02-26-2011, 08:38 AM

I haven't read all of the discussions about aiming systems on this and other forums but I have read enough. It seems to me that aiming isn't the main problem when you really get down to playing.

I don't care if you are using pro 1, cte, contact point, ghost ball or any other aiming system. In the end, they all give you a magic spot on the object ball and if the cue ball hits that spot, the ball will go into the pocket. The balls don't care if you pivot or not. They don't care if you are really aiming at that majic spot or someplace else. They don't even care if you hit the cue ball into object ball first or send the cue ball 8 rails around the table first. All of these systems will work if done properly.

IMHO, the real problem in playing pool is delivering the cue ball to that majic spot on the object ball. All of this descussion on aiming is worthless if you can't deliver the cue ball to the proper spot.

cushioncrawler

02-26-2011, 03:13 PM

Zaktly. I sometimes waste a few minutes by potting the red into a corner pkt off its spot, halfball -- uzing stun or side etc to return the qball to nearnuff the same pozzy (not important). I am lucky if i get a run of 6.
I hav worn a qball-track in the cloth for this sort of shot -- and the red haz worn a red-track to the pkt. In fakt it iz diffikult to hit the red so that it wont go in -- the groov bends the red to the pkt.
I dont need an aim-system -- i need a good repeatable stroke.
mac.

All I'm saying is that if they needed an aiming system, they wouldn't be pro players.
How many tournaments had they won before they even heard of this system?

Q

wolfdancer

03-05-2011, 09:47 PM

I guess that pro one is now popular with many players, but I'm wondering what your feedback would be if you missed?
I just recently purchased "Powerful Pool"...from Max Eberle, but so far have only watched disk one. I'm also viewing
"Perfect Connection" a golf instructional dvd set with C.J. Goecks
After I finish with these, I'll have to choose between becoming a Golf Pro, or a Pool Pro.....I think one would have to "follow the money"

Rich R.

03-06-2011, 07:18 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I guess that pro one is now popular with many players, but I'm wondering what your feedback would be if you missed?
I just recently purchased "Powerful Pool"...from Max Eberle, but so far have only watched disk one. I'm also viewing
"Perfect Connection" a golf instructional dvd set with C.J. Goecks
After I finish with these, I'll have to choose between becoming a Golf Pro, or a Pool Pro.....I think one would have to "follow the money"

</div></div>
I used to golf but, after I put my ball in the hole, I got tired of waiting around for everyone else to finish. With pool, when I put the ball in the hole, I get to keep shooting.
Apart from the money, I'd have to recommend being a pro pool player so concentrate on that video.

I guess, if I'm to become a pro pool player, I have to take the wrappers off some of the DVD's I have laying around the house. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Bambu

03-06-2011, 10:49 AM

I guess, if I'm to become a pro pool player, I have to take the wrappers off some of the DVD's I have laying around the house.

Go Rich, you can do it!

cushioncrawler

03-06-2011, 03:14 PM

[quote=wolfdancer I guess that pro one is now popular with many players, but I'm wondering what your feedback would be if you missed? I just recently purchased "Powerful Pool"...from Max Eberle, but so far have only watched disk one. I'm also viewing
"Perfect Connection" a golf instructional dvd set with C.J. Goecks After I finish with these, I'll have to choose between becoming a Golf Pro, or a Pool Pro.....I think one would have to "follow the money"[/quote]Woofly -- Why not get a porno DVD -- then u kood bekum a pro-pro.
mac.